Examining the Role of Faculty Subcultures in Perceptions of Student Retention Initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars and practitioners have argued that student success must be a shared responsibility among members of the campus community. Academic and student affairs cultures play imperative roles in the establishment and success of partnerships designed to support student success. However, little is known about the differences within the academic affairs culture that shapes faculty members’ perceptions of such initiatives. Understanding how faculty members perceive student retention efforts is essential in developing a shared responsibility for student success. This research examines the extent to which faculty with various academic ranks (tenured/promoted, tenure track, and non-tenure track/non-promotional), years employed at current institution, and broad disciplinary areas vary in their perceptions of departmental and institutional retention initiatives. Faculty members’ perceptions of these retention initiatives are measured according to awareness of their departments’ and institutions’ academic and co-curricular activities, dedication of resources towards promoting retention, and communication about available support services. Results revealed variations among faculty members in their perceptions of departmental and institutional retention efforts according to the subcultures analysed. Implications for faculty members, student affairs staff members, and administration are considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".